Yes. The wisdom behind the US Constitution we have recently shredded is the concept of the individual in a world where we are all granted unalienable rights from the moment we are conceived. But it takes an entire planetary culture to recognize it. Nation states will never rise above the inherent conflicts.
I believe and maybe it is just me ( a personal bias) but I do believe, sheltered in the biological wisdom of our mother's body, that we are granted these from conception.
It is rigid and dangerous to compare a living breathing human being to a potential human being, a collection of cells, and give that group of cells the same rights as a woman. People are legislating their rigid belief systems and hurting women, especially poor women.
Is "potential human being" a human being? If not, then why not - because it can be aborted or the process interrupted in some other abnormal way?
This is something I wrote elsewhere for some other discussion, see if you disagree:
"Let's define "natural" as something that occurs in nature, and in this context "normal" as that which, if left alone, progresses to a certain outcome, naturally.
A sperm or an egg left by themselves progress nowhere and that is normal and natural.
A fertilized egg is another story altogether. If left alone in its natural state it normally progresses to become a person. If that progress is interrupted, either naturally or unnaturally, that is abnormal as the interruption destroys this new entity and regardless of whether it can feel or has consciousness or what not, it will never change the fact that a potential human being is no more."
When we study embryology intensively we find extremely high levels of organization in a fertilized egg. Every part of the “clump of cells” involved in an elegant, elaborate process. Yet another elaborate and elegant process unfolds between the developing human embryo and the body of the mother. This magnificent process is something all humans need to be educated about. To fail to understand this is to fail to understand our lives.
Thanks, KW. I look at the US Constitution as shredding the newborn State Constitutions that protected the rights of individuals to provide for themselves through ownership of property and the means of commerce. The US Constitution took away their ability to protect their sovereignty using bills of credit for local exchange. It's all been a predictable (and predicted) consolidation of power over others since then. Here's an episode I posted on it, which you might have already read, since I know and am so grateful you read my ideas! :
Yes, agree State's Rights are a fundamentally important part of the Constitution. Not sure I understand the technicalities so well but that is what is great about the Constitution.
With much love and respect for you, KW, I think the opposite. The Constitution was written to destroy the rights of the States and leapfrog over them to a consolidated government directly over all the people. That's what made handing money creation to the bankers so much easier--the States were forbidden to issue any form of credit for internal trade. So the bankers were given all of our labor for free, while the States were left with responsibility to provide for people's needs with no proactive way to do it. They had to tax the earnings people made from serving the merchant-bankers, instead of simply paying them in the State-generated currency backed by the housing, so they never had to work for the wealthy in the first place.
If that is true then it is my deficient understanding of the Constitution. Some of our founding ancestors were very worried about the merchant-bankers. Such arguments between those siding with Jefferson and those siding with Madison.
Yes! You're exactly right. Those who won were Madison and Hamilton, who had plotted the overthrow of the Articles of Confederation in forcing the Convention from a meeting of merchant-bankers in Annapolis. Everything they did was illegal according to the Articles, which is a fairly uninspired document meant to leave the power to the States. The State Constitutions are where the Bill of Rights is sourced from, but it's a pale shadow written by Madison simply to squash those who wouldn't ratify the Constitution without it. The promise to ratify was made to get their agreement, then he wrote a toothless version to keep them from challenging slavery (which couldn't be changed for a number of years) and forbidding the States to issue their own currencies. We've all been taught a deficient understanding of what happened, you're not alone.
Well, well. Sometimes I hate being right! I wrote a long post earlier this year with lots of video refreshers on all this. The founding ancestors made so many concessions to seal the deal. Improved education in history and civics is necessary for certain.
The Constitution that you revere was written to divide the colonies from the world at large. It’s a document that reinforces the nation-state that you lament. It isn’t an ode to the individual, but a declaration that property makes the individual. It addresses “the pursuit of happiness...”. , which is in sync with its allegiance to property. Amass wealth, accumulate stuff, monetize everything that you can...bliss!
It is possible to see the positive aspects of the Constitution without being starry eyed about the Nation State. Quite obviously the beginnings of the US were a process. We are still in a process. The "pursuit of happiness" can be looked at in many different ways. Nation states all over the "civilized" world have blown the whole notion. Either we can start over or we cannot.
Yes. The wisdom behind the US Constitution we have recently shredded is the concept of the individual in a world where we are all granted unalienable rights from the moment we are conceived. But it takes an entire planetary culture to recognize it. Nation states will never rise above the inherent conflicts.
From the moment we are born... NOT at conception.
I believe and maybe it is just me ( a personal bias) but I do believe, sheltered in the biological wisdom of our mother's body, that we are granted these from conception.
It is rigid and dangerous to compare a living breathing human being to a potential human being, a collection of cells, and give that group of cells the same rights as a woman. People are legislating their rigid belief systems and hurting women, especially poor women.
Is "potential human being" a human being? If not, then why not - because it can be aborted or the process interrupted in some other abnormal way?
This is something I wrote elsewhere for some other discussion, see if you disagree:
"Let's define "natural" as something that occurs in nature, and in this context "normal" as that which, if left alone, progresses to a certain outcome, naturally.
A sperm or an egg left by themselves progress nowhere and that is normal and natural.
A fertilized egg is another story altogether. If left alone in its natural state it normally progresses to become a person. If that progress is interrupted, either naturally or unnaturally, that is abnormal as the interruption destroys this new entity and regardless of whether it can feel or has consciousness or what not, it will never change the fact that a potential human being is no more."
When we study embryology intensively we find extremely high levels of organization in a fertilized egg. Every part of the “clump of cells” involved in an elegant, elaborate process. Yet another elaborate and elegant process unfolds between the developing human embryo and the body of the mother. This magnificent process is something all humans need to be educated about. To fail to understand this is to fail to understand our lives.
Really? Your argument is leave natural and normal alone?
How interesting.
Thanks, KW. I look at the US Constitution as shredding the newborn State Constitutions that protected the rights of individuals to provide for themselves through ownership of property and the means of commerce. The US Constitution took away their ability to protect their sovereignty using bills of credit for local exchange. It's all been a predictable (and predicted) consolidation of power over others since then. Here's an episode I posted on it, which you might have already read, since I know and am so grateful you read my ideas! :
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-constitutional-convention-coup
Yes, agree State's Rights are a fundamentally important part of the Constitution. Not sure I understand the technicalities so well but that is what is great about the Constitution.
With much love and respect for you, KW, I think the opposite. The Constitution was written to destroy the rights of the States and leapfrog over them to a consolidated government directly over all the people. That's what made handing money creation to the bankers so much easier--the States were forbidden to issue any form of credit for internal trade. So the bankers were given all of our labor for free, while the States were left with responsibility to provide for people's needs with no proactive way to do it. They had to tax the earnings people made from serving the merchant-bankers, instead of simply paying them in the State-generated currency backed by the housing, so they never had to work for the wealthy in the first place.
If that is true then it is my deficient understanding of the Constitution. Some of our founding ancestors were very worried about the merchant-bankers. Such arguments between those siding with Jefferson and those siding with Madison.
Yes! You're exactly right. Those who won were Madison and Hamilton, who had plotted the overthrow of the Articles of Confederation in forcing the Convention from a meeting of merchant-bankers in Annapolis. Everything they did was illegal according to the Articles, which is a fairly uninspired document meant to leave the power to the States. The State Constitutions are where the Bill of Rights is sourced from, but it's a pale shadow written by Madison simply to squash those who wouldn't ratify the Constitution without it. The promise to ratify was made to get their agreement, then he wrote a toothless version to keep them from challenging slavery (which couldn't be changed for a number of years) and forbidding the States to issue their own currencies. We've all been taught a deficient understanding of what happened, you're not alone.
Well, well. Sometimes I hate being right! I wrote a long post earlier this year with lots of video refreshers on all this. The founding ancestors made so many concessions to seal the deal. Improved education in history and civics is necessary for certain.
The Constitution that you revere was written to divide the colonies from the world at large. It’s a document that reinforces the nation-state that you lament. It isn’t an ode to the individual, but a declaration that property makes the individual. It addresses “the pursuit of happiness...”. , which is in sync with its allegiance to property. Amass wealth, accumulate stuff, monetize everything that you can...bliss!
It is possible to see the positive aspects of the Constitution without being starry eyed about the Nation State. Quite obviously the beginnings of the US were a process. We are still in a process. The "pursuit of happiness" can be looked at in many different ways. Nation states all over the "civilized" world have blown the whole notion. Either we can start over or we cannot.